124 Ohio App. 3d 718 - State v. Garrard’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

15 state decisions

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 15 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““(1) The physical or mental injury suffered by the victim of the offense due to the conduct of the offender was exacerbated because of the physical or mental condition or age of the victim. “(2) The victim of the offense suffered serious physical, psychological, or economic harm as a result of the offense. “(6) The offender’s relationship with the victim facilitated the offense.” R.C. 2929.12(B). The trial court may also consider any other relevant factors. Id. R.C. 2929.12(D) lists nonexclusive factors for the trial court to consider when determining whether a defendant poses the greatest likelihood of recidivism: “(1) At the time of committing the offense, the offender was under release from confinement before trial or sentencing, under a sanction imposed pursuant to section 2929.16, 2929.17, or 2929.18 of the Revised Code, or under post-release control pursuant to section 2967.28 or any other provision of the Revised Code for an earlier offense. “(2) The offender previously was adjudicated a delinquent child pursuant to Chapter 2151. of the Revised Code, or the offender has a history of criminal convictions. “(3) The offender has not been rehabilitated to a satisfactory degree after previously being adjudicated a delinquent child pursuant to Chapter 2151. of the Revised Code, or the offender has not responded favorably to sanctions previously imposed for criminal convictions. “(4) The offender has demonstrated a pattern of drug or alcohol abuse that is related to the offen”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Rouse, Unpublished Decision (10-23-2003) · 139 Ohio App. 3d 827 - State v. Boshko

2. “[I]n determining whether an offender's conduct is `more serious' than conduct normally constituting the offense under R.C. 2929.12 (B), a trial court should consider anything `relevant' to that issue. This includes factors beyond those enumerated in the statute * * *.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Brown, Unpublished Decision (4-9-2004) · State v. Jewell, Unpublished Decision (3-10-2004)

3. “the maximum sentence a judge may impose solely on the basis of facts reflected in the jury verdict or admitted by the defendant. " (Emphasis sic.) Id. {¶ 32} In the instant matter, at the sentencing hearing, the trial court stated on the record that it found that the minimum sentence would demean the seriousness of the offense, appellant committed the worst form of the offense, and appellant had the greatest likelihood of recidivism. From appellant's criminal history, the trial court could have found, as it did, that appellant posed the greatest likelihood of recidivism. Judicial findings based upon past criminal convictions, which increase a penalty for a crime, do not violate Apprendi or Blakely . However, Ohio's sentencing scheme only authorized the trial court to sentence appellant to the maximum term because it also found that appellant committed the "worst form of the offense”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Parsons, Unpublished Decision (12-23-2004)